These two sentences that end this article are the only ones of any intelligence, (even if accidental, as is probable!). They negate everything that preceds them !!
// He remains his generation’s most accomplished political tactician. Polls show that voters still consider him a more impressive leader than his rivals. And he is only one year into his term. ... //

While the Economist is capable of the best in the world of journalism it can also be just as much a rag as any tabloid depending on who's writing and what the topic is. I find that on matters Canadian they are typically superficial and sophomoric, as if their budget for Canadian affairs is quite limited. As with the issue at hand there is no evidence of independent research or analysis. Rather the impression is left that their correspondent has simply summarized a number of reported items from Canadian sources adding nothing more than their cheeky and often snide tone. I would give it little credibility.

Yes, if you do not like the message, attack the messenger.
As a Canadian, I regrettably have to ask whether our PM is nasty, vengeful, vindictive and overly controlling.
Also, is the PM too warlike, wanting to buy the unproven F35 with such a short range that it csnnot patrol in the High Arctic against Russian Bear bombers?
With a majority government., I had hoped that he could tone down the puganciousness, but that is not the case.

True to form, another whining Canadian. I say this as a Canadian as well, who now lives in the United States

They always feel they do not get a fair shake from The Economist, or any other foreign newspaper regardless of the issue being presented. The reason, of course, is that their media is incredibly pandering and sugar coats any news in favor of Canada. Canadians are not used to any kind of objective reporting from their media or their politicians. There is always the comment that, not to worry, the situation is better than in the US. That is a given.

An example of this pandering is a report which appeared in the Globe and mail, a Canadian national newspaper, last year which proclaimed that "Canada was the envy of the world". The most amusing part was that in the comment threads to this story, Canadians lapped it right up and agreed wholeheartedly. It's a pity they hadn't asked "the world".

The Canadian economy was done relatively well over the last couple of years mainly due to higher and higher real estate prices and a building spree, as well as a burgeoning personal debt overhang. Well, that is rapidly coming to an end with reports yesterday in the Globe and Mail of plummeting housing sales in Toronto and Vancouver. For example, Vancouver house sales were at a ten year low in June. Collapsing prices will follow. Little surprise as the average price of the average single family home in Vancouver has reached in excess of $950K - in a city where the average household income is barely $70K. Prices will need to revisit $450K before the average family can afford an average home - a drop of more than 50%.

Canadians are now the most indebted in the industrialized world, with debt exceeding 150% of BEFORE TAX household income.

A rude awakening is well overdue - which should clear the smug and sneering faces that have watched America's troubles over the past three years with much schadenfreude. Comments by Canadians to Globe and Mail articles have been the norm, such as America is heading to third world status, the US% is in the process of losing its reserve status, extreme exaggeration of US foreclosure and bankruptcy numbers, exaggerated comments such as how it is possible to buy a US home in hard hit areas for less than $10K, etc, etc.

All this from a neighbor which shares the longest undefended border in the world, and most of whose industries are run by US branches and retail chains. It appears that chips on Canadian shoulders from living in the shadow of the economic colossus to the south have been surprised some in America who had thought that Canadians were long standing friends.

The party is winding down and the long hangover will begin. Individuals balance sheets will be destroyed by the real estate rout. A collapse in personal spending will follow and construction will cease.

I expect that Mr Mulcair of the NDP will have a very good shot at the next election as voters reject and blame Mr Harper.

For someone who complains about whining Canadians you seem to do an awful lot of whining yourself. If you are in fact a Canadian living in America then do us all a favour and stay there we don't want you here.

Right on. Getting no news other than left wing, from any of our local news media, our two broadcasters-CBC and CTV,i subscribed to the Economist to get another view, which occasionally happens from some US media. \\ Not any longer for the Economist, which is why I am letting my subscription lapse.

Very typical Canadian response - I could have predicted that. Canadians rarely take any note of feedback unless it is glowing. This is presumably why US branch plants and US retail chains run most of Canadian industries. The main reason that RIM, the company that produces the Blackberry smart phone, is currently in the final stages of collapse in market share and market price. There was plenty of feedback given to RIM that they were falling behind the IPhone and Google's android offerings. That was ignored by management. Canadians don't listen too well - they have the impression they are smarter than anyone else. One would also think they would have taken note of real estate bubbles around the world collapsing over the past couple of years. Hell no - the comments were "we are special and don't have a bubble. Everyone wants to live here and will pay whatever prices are". Well, they are currently finding out that they indeed are not that special.

The replies to your post seem to assume that you are an indignant Canadian who refuses to believe sober, critical journalism. But that's not the point. As a Canadian I support a healthy dose of cynicism. But the Economist rarely has much of interest to say about Canada. I think you summed it up perfectly!

It makes you wonder how many other countries receive the same treatment.

Mr Harper inherited a budget surplus, thanks mostly to the efforts of Finance Ministers Wilson and Martin in previous governments. His government went into deficit a year *before* the Economic crisis, despite unheeded and mocked warnings from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This allegedly fiscally Conservative government has managed to erase all the progress at paying down the national debt made under Chretien and Martin governments.

The Liberal government achieved surpluses in the previous decade largely because of the GST (VAT) and Free Trade Agreement (FTA) both of which were brought in by the previous Conservative government along with promises by the Liberals that they would get rid of them both once in office. They didn't of course and along with the good fortune of a very low Canadian dollar and a booming U.S. economy they were able to tame the deficit. As for fiscal discipline, the only real cuts the Liberals made were to the Military - which became a joke under their watch - and transfers to the provinces particuliarly in health resulting in a shift from from accumulating federal debt to accumulating provincial debt.

Mr Harper inherited a budget surplus, thanks mostly to the efforts of Finance Ministers Wilson and Martin in previous governments. His government went into deficit a year *before* the Economic crisis, despite unheeded and mocked warnings from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This allegedly fiscally Conservative government has managed to erase all the progress at paying down the national debt made under Chretien and Martin governments.

Three quarters of this article read as if they have been written by one of the opposition parties. Talking about bullying, Mr. Harper is not in the same league as prime ministers Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau. Compared to those three Mr. Harper is not much of a bully.

Dear David Hadden:
I believe your first sentenc should read "three quarters of this article reads as if it had been written by one of the opposition parties".
Second, your second sentence is akin to saying that Mr. Harper is an aggressive driver, not as aggressive as some, but still aggressive. I am not sure the PM will be happy with such damning praise.

Three quarters of this article read as if they have been written by one of the opposition parties. Talking about bullying, Mr. Harper is not in the same league as prime ministers Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau. Compared to those three Mr. Harper is not much of a bully.

The conservatives value topics such as the economy, conservative social values, and prosperity.
The liberals and NDP value issues such as equity through social programs, the environment, and liberal social values.
The cost-benefit analysis of any initiative is simply measured differently between the parties.
Anyone who doesn't beleive that concludes (as mentioned in this comment section):

"Before his party had their majority, they wrote themselves a handbook on how to undermine parliamentary procedure for their own political gain."

"Harper's only real accomplishment is that he has destroyed any notion of integrity in Canadian politics and governance."

"The left wing doesn't like the Harper government because the government's intent is to get things done."

"Next time you are talking to your neighbour, make sure you tell them how superior you are to them face to face and not just on an anonymous internet comment page."

" It is only in the minds of the weak kneed opposition parties and their supporters."

"What's worse, it is Harper who doesn't have a balanced approach; he doesn't have a SINGLE policy not related to oil sands. His entire foreign policy, immigration policy and infrastructure policy was about selling oil, bringing in cheap workers to dig oil and building infrastructure to transport oil. Not even refineries."

"I am disappointed to see that The Economist has caved into leftist pressures and used bullying in the title to this article."

People have always taken too much of an "us vs. them" view on politics. I have never voted conservative but I beleive that Harper is doing what he thinks is best for Canada. However his does have too much bias towards his conservative views, in which he won a majority with 40% of voters. That 40% can win an ruling majority is an issue for another debate.

I think this quote from Harper exemplifies his mindset; Canada was becoming “a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.”

He does not take the opposition views into consideration enough. Some may argue he doesn't have to, but he is mostly ignoring much (perhaps most) of the population. Its is contempt for leftist views that are damaging him as a leader.

The Harper Party is more a corporation than a political party. They're 'conservative' in name only; in essence, you could change your name to Bruce Lee but that wouldn't make you a Kung Fu master. They have received significant support and advice from another fake conservative political party, namely the U.S. Republicans, and there's a growing belief that the same voter suppression tactics that the GOP use have been exported to Canada...woe unto the Harper Party if it's proven that they engaged in widespread vote suppression.

A very large part of Harper's success can be attributed to a complete and utter self-immolation by the former Liberal governments, who chose two of the weakest leaders one could ever search for (Dion and Ignatieff) after 13 years in power and despite successive balanced budgets. It's been only by the grace of a thoroughly inept opposition that Harper has made it this far because otherwise he has all the personal warmth and charisma of a cobra.

But Harper supporters should look to history before they get too comfortable with the notion of him as PM for Life: Canada has a rather consistent record of how it rids itself of 'conservative' governments that get too arrogant and over-bearing: they don't just vote them out, they drive them towards near electoral extinction, and the way Mr. Harper is going, if his party was a stock, I wouldn't 'go long'. In fact, clinging to a narrow majority as they are, with two by-elections pending, and a vote-suppression scandal that could throw a number of close elections into doubt, I'd say that making it to 2015 is far from assured...they're quickly wearing out their welcome.

The oil industry will spend whatever it takes, and do whatever it takes, to keep Stephen Harper in office.

To them, a billion dollars in public relations and campaign spending is nothing as compared to the value they obtain by having him in office: ridiculously low taxation, and no chance of improved environmental protection laws. The oil companies are laughing.

But all it will take to have Harper sent packing is a collapse of house prices, which looks like has already started with Vancouver house sales in June reported this past week to be down to a 10 year low. Toronto condo sales were also reported to have plunged.

I doubt Mr Harper will outlast the wreckage to personal balance sheets this will cause. This will shred personal spending and cause construction to essentially cease.

The Economist's coverage of Canada could be gleaned from a read of the Globe and Mail or Toronto Star and provides little insight into Canadian politics or affairs, and the biases of domestic journalists which often makes me wonder about the coverage of the Economist in other countries.
However to a point made by a few other commentators on the article, the media often seems to say things about the Conservative government criticism which when done by previous governments never received any criticisms: parliaments were porogued previously, Mr. Harper said it was to rebalance the economy after the 2009, but no the media knows the real reason; omnibus bills were passed previously, but only when Harper does is it a bad thing.
As to the criticism that Mr. Harper Conservatives practices the politics of division, in comparison to whom? The Liberals were famous for using Multi-cultural groups funded by the liberal governments for some 30 years to run a propoganda campaign against the PC and Reform parties as 'racist' 'anti-immigrant'; the Liberal Party ran at least one national federal campaign essentially against Alberta; the Liberals used the Quebec question often for its own purposes to build it's party and attack opponents, as did the PC's under Mulroney, and Charest (when he led them.) I do not recall Mr. Harper putting one region of the country against another. In fact his efforts to declare 'Quebec as a nation within Canada' did much to put the wind out of the sails of the BQ. However, the Quebec Media elite's fixation of nationalism continue to paint Mr. Harper as some demon, and in their narrow isolation that's all Quebecers see.
We hear of the robocall scandal where there is no evidence that any Conservative party officials were involved, but election Canada makes their investigation known. However, in the early 2000's there was a by-election in the Labrador riding, a small riding in terms of population, where the vote was close, where in 1 poll, there was 100% turnout with 100% of the voters cast votes for the Liberal party's winning candidate, Elections Canada refused to investigate, the press largely ignored.
Seems like bias, but who knows. Unfortunately in my view, like those who supported the coaltion of Liberals-NDP-BQ that tried to have coup-d'etat to unseat the government within weeks of the 2008 election, with several pretexts as justification, those who supported, very few in English Canada, many in Quebec, believed that a coalition including separatist were better Canadians any day than Conservatives (and the whispered in hushed under-tone's that imply something immoral 'western Reformers'.) Often I hear from English Canadian lefish bigots how Mr. Harper Conservatives (whisper whisper Reformers), only won about 40% of the vote, but if you exclude Quebec, where the Conservaties did win a 1/2 dozen seats notwithstanding their low standings there, outside of Quebec about 50% of Canadians votes for Mr. Harper. So for most of you who look down on the Conservatives voters in English Canada where most of you live, 1 out of every 2 of your neighbours voted for them. Next time you are talking to your neighbour, make sure you tell them how superior you are to them face to face and not just on an anonymous internet comment page.
And the Economist, have someone do some real research on Canadian issues, not just a Ontario-Montreal based Canadian journalist as your correspondent, Canada is small and the centre is strong but a small little clique that really doesn't do much research or thinking but just parrots those in their tight little circles.
Or at least that is my view, based upon my biases.

Toronto-Born's comment is typical of the kind of childish approach that supporters of Harper's government have used throughout his career to excuse his excesses. The "they did it too", or "they did it first" is used day after day to try to excuse the almost daily reports of the government treading into questionable territory. They detract from the conversation by starting the debate over who was first or worst, and ignore the issue at hand, which is no one has ever done all of the things Harper has done, in such an underhanded and sustained way.

Before his party had their majority, they wrote themselves a handbook on how to undermine parliamentary procedure for their own political gain.

His mission is to destroy the Liberal Party who he felt marginalized him when he was a member back in his younger days. His vendetta will take Canada down with it because the Liberal Party shared a lot of territory with the traditional conservatives in Canada, and together those two parties both created and reflected what was best about Canada and Canadians. This new Reform party is a beast that has risen from some extreme right wing territory and given world history, should be watched very carefully.

My point was not to excuse the Conservatives, but only to note that when the Liberals did it, the media and Liberal supporters did excuse it.
Again, the infantile rant about the new Reform Party, in reference to the Conservative party indeed shows your prejudices, I know I have mine. This is not an extreme right wing party like the National Front in France, it a main stream moderate party, the fact the opposition parties aren't and many view them as such is perhaps what people should be more concerned why credence is given to them as 'mainstream' especially the NDP.
The opponents of the Conservatives and Mr. Harper accuse him of being the worst, and detract from debate, I dispute that. Think of the debate when the Conservatives have tried to have, and free votes, the opposition parties enforce party discipline, censure their MP's who vote against party lines. Example, discussion to reform old age security (a welfare payment) or CPP, what was the debate from the opposition, even before the gov't gave its proposale 'don't do it, ever, no debate ever '.
I see little evidence of the political parties wanting to debate. I worked in Parliament over 20 years ago, and I can tell you when the parties all agreed which was frequent in those days, there was no debate even when the public didn't agree with the 3 parties, and when the opposition didn't agree with the government there was absolute chaos and stalement followed by bell ringing and closure. Your view is clouded by the recentcy effect and prejudice not facts.
My family have lived in Canada for over 200 years, and many of my relatives were devoted Liberals, and I consider myself a classical liberal (which is a reformer---George Brown founder of the Globe and Mail was a Reformer), not a Tory, but the the Liberal party has lost touch with Canada, it has become a Tory party where family connections and relationships to the 1968 Liberal convention and Trudeau or Pearson seem to be paramount. Many criticize Harper like, what has his family done for Canada...he wasn't at the '68 convention like Ignatieff and Rae. Paul Martin. Leblanc son of Romeo Leblanc. The Liberal Party has become a party of aristocrats, it really needs to open up the club to survive. That was the one thing the Reform party brought to the PC's and why it's successful and mainstream. The NDP in the their own narrow way do this.

The Liberal party did much to damage internal relations in Canada for its own benefit, the NEP to transfer wealth from the West to Central Canada while running huge deficits, appointing federal cabinet ministers directly to the senior courts of Canada, I don't think Harper has done that, pushing unconsitituionally into areas of provincial jurisdication using conditional transfer payments as in health care, vilifying anyone who suggest changes to the Canada health act could help improve Health Care and then singling out selectively certain provinces.
Only in Canada would the Canada Health Act be singled out as a unifying act, it is unconsititional, as the Federal gov't has no constitutional authority to legislate in health care, but because it intrude into provincical revenue collection, during and after the WWII, it used the purse strings to enforce programs, do as I say or no money. This helped with Quebec nationalist/separatists?
I don't know what you think Mr. Harper vendetta against the Liberal party, but the Liberal Party has been in decline to point of absence in entire areas of the country since 1968 and perhaps before. the Liberals lost the west, they lost rural areas partly through snobbery and urban-elitism, like the gun registry pitting urban vs rural, they lost multi-cultural groups, they lost francophone Quebecers through corruption and constitutional arrogance. The Liberals lost huge swathes of voters, long before Harper came along. I was one of them. As in marketing Mr. Harper knows how his market is and it might peak at 40%, but who is the Liberal market, all those who don't like the Conservatives and Harper, well their #2 in opposition, what makes them better then the NDP? Because they are better people. Well that is sort of the definition of an aristocrat.
I've had the pleasure if only in passing to have met ever PM since Trudeau, Mr Harper in my view is OK.
The opposition undermines parliament through their unprofessional approach to issues, against every issue, against debate on every issue. They oppose everything, I hear no reasoned alternates. A new law and new gov't department is hardly a reasoned approach.
Cheers

1. Take a gander through the archives of Canadian newspapers and you will see that no, they did not ignore the past transgressions of governments. What of Adscam, or Chretien's encounter with the poverty activist? The Liberals were defeated in part because the media was extremely critical of the growing sense of entitlement.

I also worked on Parliament Hill when the "Reform" Party arrived. I agree with you on one point, I don't believe they are true "reformers" either. With the arrival of Manning and Harper, the party immediately set to work costing the taxpayers money by forcing the House to rearrange the MPs offices on the hill so that the Reformers wouldn't have Liberals or NDP offices next door. Before that, parties could work together, but afterwards? They do things differently - they don't just dismiss anyone who does not agree with them, they attack them and do whatever they can to undermine them, (even if they are knowingly dishonest in their attacks)and everything they do COSTS MORE.

I'm not sure what relevance your family history has in this regard. My family has also been in Canada for centuries. Multiple members have represented Canada abroad and others have held senior government positions both elected and appointed. I was personally welcomed by the Inuit - does that make a difference? Members of my family have played hockey with Harper's son. I've witnessed the man first hand and in a setting where he was not in politics. In that arena, he was a complete fish out of water. If you didn't know, you would be hard pressed to figure out who his kid was. The man didn't talk to the other parents. Was he a snob, or just socially inept?

But again, you digress into an attack on the Liberal party and ignore completely the fact that this article is about how Harper does not respect the rules and not about Canadian political history. If anything you only make the case that Canadians don't love or even like Harper, he won by default or possibly fraud, but his playing with our institutions has undermined the public faith that they will be capable of holding him accountable. Canadians were fundamentally law abiding and respecting people. When you lose faith in those institutions anarchy eventually follows. That is Harper's real legacy. To destroy the faith in fairness, justice and representation.

Finally, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think "meeting" PMs somehow makes your comment more relevant. So what, I've also met all the PMs since Trudeau and a couple Presidents of the US as well as other foreign leaders and even Robert Mugabe who Harper resembles in many, many ways. You must have been a security guard on the hill if you don't understand the important role that an opposition plays in a Parliamentary democracy. Debating legislation allows the public an opportunity to learn about the implications of clauses in legislation and identify problems BEFORE laws are made that then have to be repealed. There have been numerous instances where governments have pulled faulty legislation as a result of a debate fueled public outcry. The same thing goes for committee work. Debate is part of the process to ensure the absolute best product is turned into law, but in your warped mind, a single party run by a dictator is good enough. That in my view is treason.

Calling a coalition government a coup-d'etat is a complete joke especially considering Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition with exact same coalition partners (the NDP and the BQ) only a few years before. And just to be clear, in both cases the BQ would have supported the coalition on confidence votes but not actually have been a part of the coalition government.

Glad to know you are so well connected, almost tongue-in-cheek, I dare say, aristocratic, I'm not. My family is just a bunch of nobodies, but lots of us through-out Canada, who I can get different points of view on, some I agree, some I don't, but I listen to most of them. If I didn't think the Dewar's were NDP, I'd think you were of that family, they've deep roots in Ottawa. I worked on the Hill before the reform arrived in '93, I left long gone before that, to enjoy a real life away from the madness, paranoia and excessive superficial self-importance, and endless wheel spining I encountered, working for parliament and parliamentarians. And I didn't say the Conservatives weren't real reformers, and I see nothing wrong with Reformers or reformers. Canada needs some good reforms like reforming payroll taxes that kill jobs and employement, like the employer contribution for CPP and EI; too rich public sector pension & MP pensions; increase in international trade; cutting the administrative burden of government on industry such as cutting out idiodic requests from StatCan, which come with threats of jail time for info that can't possibly be produced with any validity; reducing public sector waste and inefficiency; getting more effectively spent educational resources so that we don't produce skills or lack of skills that people can actual benefit the economy; health care that is provided more efficiently and effectively when compared to most of the G8; getting out of idiodic environmental deals, which by their own design can not possibly reduce pollution world wide, but which obligate Canada to reduce economic output or pay for the right to pollute. You are right most of these the Conservative government is only nibbling around the edges, but could do more and really reform, I guess that's what you mean. But perhaps, I should assume because you disagree with them you don't like their type of reform.
I only threw out a few observations to point out your biases, you can see mine.

You are correct that parliament and legislature is to examine legislation. It would be good if the opposition actually did that.

As far as the holding of the Liberals to account. Claims of moralism from the opposition, the NDP claim some moral high group, but I don't see it, the self-righteous do nothing yourself group but spend someone else's money, and the liberals aren't good at claiming moral high ground, too much history of expediency vs conviction. "I'm against GST '93...oh wait; I'm agaisnt wage and price controls '76, oh wait, ...oh I'm against tax increases in fuel taxes '80 election, oh wait." "we can run deficits forever, don't worry '93, oh wait crisis."
You made a comment about Adscam. Do you recall that when this happened the media reported the Liberal response, as this was a one time thing. No mention of HRDC scandal which was similar. (I digress, memory serves me correctly Jane Stewart minister on the hot seat, daughter of former Ontario Liberal leader, and grand daughter of Liberal Premier in 1940's, just to remember my aristocratic club comments earlier), Izzy Asper, I think, head of CanWest Global said, the media's talked enough about, it's damaging the gov't and national unity, or maybe that was Shawinigate, oh another one.

Glad to know you in the tin-foil in the hat community that thinks Harper fraudulently won the election. I'm often not happy with who won the election, but a few phone calls in a number of ridings? I've worked as a worker on election campaigns years ago and I find it difficult to fathom that to think that energy, and limited resources spent getting people not to vote is more valuable then getting your voters to vote, think about it just where's the 'rubble for the rubles' (I think this was John Foster Dulles) for cost vs return, I obviously can't see it.
You seeing Mr Harper and not talking with/to him or he to you, is a 2 edged sword, the fault may not lie with all with the one observed.

sorry, there is the story Harper discussed. But I don't recall him appearing on a platform with the Separatists.
Oh, and they weren't part of the coalition, but without their votes the Liberal-NDP didn't have enough votes to out number the Conservatives. A fairly thin difference.
In English Canada, very few supported the Coalition. But I've always felt that those who did felt that BQ's separatists are better Canadians than Conservatives. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I think you'd better read more documents in French before spreading such false assertion the Quebec psyche. Harper, for all of his promises, is a neoconservative leader bent on corporate welfare and capitalism for the average citizen. His values are anti-Quebecois in that respect.

And his corporate welfare appears to be selective. He does not speak loud enough - if he does - for software, biotech, manufacturing, aerospace, etc. He has more clout for Exxon than for Bombardier, CGI, Quebecor and the other members of Quebec Inc. It's all about oil, oil and more oil.

Cutting back on pensions, unemployment and giving more police powers to Yanks is a step back in our social safety net and in our national security. (I mean come on, the USA, the country with the most inmates jailed in the world with jails run by private interests.) Recurrent deficits also impoverish the most overtaxed taxpayers of this country as a whole.

So Harper is not viewed as demon who is stoking separatism (it died in 1995); he is viewed as a leader whose economic message fails to converge with Quebec's elite, middle and lower classes.

I think you'd better read more documents in French before spreading such false assertion the Quebec psyche. Harper, for all of his promises, is a neoconservative leader bent on corporate welfare and capitalism for the average citizen. His values are anti-Quebecois in that respect.

And his corporate welfare appears to be selective. He does not speak loud enough - if he does - for software, biotech, manufacturing, aerospace, etc. He has more clout for Exxon than for Bombardier, CGI, Quebecor and the other members of Quebec Inc. It's all about oil, oil and more oil.

Cutting back on pensions, unemployment and giving more police powers to Yanks is a step back in our social safety net and in our national security. (I mean come on, the USA, the country with the most inmates jailed in the world with jails run by private interests.) Recurrent deficits also impoverish the most overtaxed taxpayers of this country as a whole.

So Harper is not viewed as demon who is stoking separatism (it died in 1995); he is viewed as a leader whose economic message fails to converge with Quebec's elite, middle and lower classes.

Harper's sin in Quebecors view is he doesn't treat Quebec as particular special, just like another province, with some cultural differences.
Quebec wants more than their share, period. Yes, you mention all the Quebec companies that Quebecors want the federal government to help with.
Unfortunately, the oil industry is driving Canada's economy, and Harper doesn't seem inclined to transfer that wealth strictly to the benefit of Quebec, is another sin in Quebec elites view.
You misunderstood, I said he was not stoking separtism, quite the opposite, he hasn't played on it like the Liberals did for generations.
Your other comments, about 'neocons' suggests some slur just from mention of the term, perhaps you know what you mean, but you're no doubt have complete insight, and you throw out terms about that should trigger some emotional response such as yanks, jails, showing perhaps a bias short on facts and high on rhetoric perhaps in common as I say with Quebec insular elite, it would be like having CBC was the only source of information for Canadians, or like being informed by Pravda/Ivestia in the old days of the USSR.
Somehow there is the thought that Quebec cultural is some free thinking society of individuals, where in fact there culural is a hierichical group think culture which derives direction largely from the top, up until the 1960's the top was dominated by the instutitions of the church; which in the '60's and '70's was converted to a hierarchy dominated by the direction given it by the institution of the state.
You can figure out what I think seriously, and where I'm completely pulling your leg, it's a fine line.

As a Torontonian by birth, I thought that you would be concerned about what matters most to your province - manufacturing, financing and jobs. Wouldn't you like your PM to speak out on behalf of Bay Street? If your PM didn't treat your province with consideration - in this case I mean Ontario - wouldn't you also feel alienated?

It's not about my province getting "special" consideration; it's about my province getting the consideration "it deserves" within the nation as a manufacturing and innovation centre. Pumping oil is very nice in the short term, but it will not lead to an improved standard of living unless it is accompanied by a multi-lateral strategy for innovation. Hence, the country has to capitalize on its dual strengths - manufacturing and resource extraction.

You see, I am all in favour of Alberta becoming a high-end oil producer. I want refineries, jobs and industrialization for Alberta. I want it to achieve its full potential before the wells dry up. I don't really care how it handles its environmental issues as it is the residents of Alberta who will ultimately decide what is best for them.

However, I also want Quebec's hydro-electrical potential to fully benefit the nation. That means powering factories in Labrador, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia with our tax dollars.

I just don't feel that our PM tries to develop the nation as a whole. I feel too much is wasted on moral rhetoric such as religion, jails, guns and abortion - distractions from our economic quagmires.

A strong Canada is one in which our politicians work together on an integrated approach to develop the economies of each and every province and territory to the benefit of the whole. That is not the case at this time.

"Mr Harper has acquired a reputation for playing fast and loose with the rules"

Your understatement is showing. For someone who has risen to the top advocating openness and accountability, the Harper team has taken hypocrisy and duplicity to a new level.

And they keep getting away with it. Canada's parliament is totally dysfunctional now. Ministers who would be fired and facing jail time in other countries get promotions in Canada. The 39 cabinet ministers and 26 parliamentary secretaries, the largest ever, give real meaning to Upton Sinclair's observation "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." .

As for the accomplishments of the conservative government, I'm not convinced by what your article refers to. The reckoning for that single year of majority government is still to come, and I don't think it's going to be pretty.

Harper's only real accomplishment is that he has destroyed any notion of integrity in Canadian politics and governance. He is riding around on the world stage on a one trick pony called Oilsands, lecturing others on economics and democracy.

Let's see how thin that act is in the 2015 election, unless our brilliant tactician figures out a way to avoid that as well.

"He twice prorogued Parliament, once to avoid a censure vote and then apparently to duck embarrassing questions from a parliamentary committee."

Wrong and wrong. Someone else can elaborate.

OK, I'm a nice guy: first prorogue was to avoid a confidence vote which would have defeated his government, not a censure. The "surprise" coalition was wildly unpopular with voters, so much so that it fell apart in the few weeks Parliament was prorogued. This vindicates that.

On the second point, unless the author is Kreskin it is of course speculation, and uninformed speculation at that: the committee you speak of and the questions it was to ask *remained* on the order paper even after prorogue. More likely, he prorogued to rebalance committees in the unelected senate, which was obstructing his elected government, in favour of Conservatives.

The very first act Harper tabled and passed (Accountability Act) greatly expanded freedom of information and, combined with his open data and open government initiatives, make his government *measurably* more open than any in federal history.

Omnibus bills are common in Canada; in fact, divorce, abortion, and sodomy were all effectively legalized via omnibus. The bill was posted online for all Canadians to read for weeks and was not terribly complex to read.

As a matter of evidence based political science, Harper is running the cleanest federal government in Canadian history - to suggest otherwise betrays a profound ignorance of Canadian political history. His predecessor was a Bermudan shipping magnate and acolyte of the shady Power Corporation, and the one before that (Chretien) fired a government bank president for not giving his buddy a loan to buy Chretien's golf course. Then he assaulted an anti-poverty protester on national television.

Andrew Coyne, whose father was fired as Bank of Canada governor by a Conservative PM in the 60s, confirms he is a Liberal voter - his animosity towards Conservatives goes back decades and his cousin gave birth to Pierre Trudeau's child. His analysis of Conservatives is of limited value.

Conservatives did not label greens "radicals", they said some are radicals, which is true. It did not kill the National Roundtable because it supported a carbon tax - again, unless Kreskin wrote this. It was a committee on the environment and economy, a novelty years ago but redundant today.

The late Jack Layton, far from being genial, was named the most uncivil parliamentarian by a study and his party named most uncivil too.

I can understand the Canadian media getting Canadian politics wrong, but the Economist? Virtually every single thing written in this piece was demonstrably false. As the late Jack Layton would say in one of his rare moments of humour: #fail

Just asking but could the author of these comments be a paid Conservative representative. For some reason, I don't recall things the same way this commentator does but I do recall them as stated in this article. Perhaps it's the myopic vision of the Conservatives. Maybe it's the need for a speech/language pathologist or hearing specialist. Perhaps it's a need for an intellectual assessment. While purely anecdotal, people with whom I speak unanimously believe Harper and his government are inept, corrupt, manipulators and liars. In short, they need to be removed at all costs.

"The very first act Harper tabled and passed (Accountability Act) greatly expanded freedom of information and, combined with his open data and open government initiatives, make his government *measurably* more open than any in federal history."

Are you trying to make a point here or is this just a subtle attempt at sarcasm? It is rather funny that you would bring that up as a talking point. On the PMO payroll Mr. Edmunston?

A quick comment: Harper did not prorogue to avoid a censure vote. Harper prorogued, the first time, to avoid the opposition bringing his government down over his inaction on the economy. They threatened, quite rightly, to form a coalition. It was not a censure vote. He sealed off parliament to stay in power.

And in response to the person who claims others have used prorogation - it's completely true. The difference in other governments use of prorogation and Harper's, is that he was doing it specifically to avoid a confidence vote. I don't think most people care about prorogation when there is a majority government, but when you prorogue with a minority to avoid a confidence vote, then you are most certainly playing on weak ethical ground.

The Governor General is constitutionally bound to take the advice only of persons having the confidence of the majority of the House.

Equally so, the Governor General has no constitutional right to take advice from anyone not having the confidence of the House.

The request for prorogation was an admission that the governing party could not face the House on a confidence motion. It should have been interpreted as a resignation.

Under those circumstances the Governor General should
have told Mr. Harper that she no longer had the constitutional right to take his advice.

Her duty was to tell him she would take his advice when he could demonstrate that he had the confidence of the House.

If he could not do that it was her duty to call upon any other person who might be able to form a government having the confidence of a majority of members in the House, and, if no person had been able to form a government, then to dissolve the House and call for new elections.

That's false. It was not "inaction on the economy" that spurred the opposition to attempt to bring down his government & replace it with an undemocratic coalition. It was the Harper government's move to revoke their per-vote subsidy.

Yes, it was quite literally about their fear of having their political pogey cut off. And no one should ever forget that.

Ok, 2 things. First, you're correct, the vote subsidy certainly played into the opposition's zeal for a coalition. No question on that one.

Second, "undemocratic coalition." This makes - zero sense. There is nothing "undemocratic" about the parties who consist of the majority of the Parliament forming a government.

The only thing undemocratic about the entire episode was Harper's antidemocratic prorogation, and Harper's antifact PR campaign to suggest that coalitions are illegitimate forms of government, despite their existence at the provincial level, in the distant past at the federal level, and throughout the world...

In short, the coalition would have consisted of a majority of Parliament. Hence, it was quite democratic.

Mr Edmondson, are you living in a parallel universe? It staggers the mind that you can twist the Conservative Party's actions into something acceptable, clean and honest. I would guess that either extreme gullibility or a paid script-writer are responsible for your diatribe. Your apologetic excuses for these opaque, secretive, republican-wannabees just don't wash. Sure, accuse sentient Canadians of ignorance - most of us recognize the difference between clean and dirty, even if you don't.

In Canada, if you want to form the government, you make that case in an election. For the opposition to turn around, in an election where the leader of the Liberal Party declared he wouldn't form a coalition with the NDP, then attempt to do so because their precious political welfare is threatened, is incredibly disingenuous and entirely undemocratic.

It is rare for governments to be defeated on motions of non-confidence. It it much more common for governments to resign.

A Prime Minister who admits he dare not face the House has no constitutional right to continue to advise the Governor General. The request for prorogation in the circumstances was a declaration by the government that it did not have the confidence of the House, and knew it.

The Governor General had no business taking his advice or granting his request in the circumstances.

I disagree. As much as I disliked the antics of Harper (or the Opposition for that matter), the Governor General was absolutely right in her decision.

The prime mandate of the viceroy is ensuring the continuity of governance. They do that through the strictest of interpretation and implementation of constitutional law and protocols.

To do other than what she did would be to go against established precedent (King-Byng affair).

Also, just imagine the precedent set where a Governor-General, with no expressed intent from Parliament (with a vote) could be allowed to read non-confidence in a sitting government. That's policy worthy of banana republics.

In the King-Byng affair, King was completely in the wrong. The Conservatives had won 116 seats, and the Liberals only 99. The Governor General had agreed to King's effort to form a minority government only on King's undertaking that if his government fell that Mr. Meighen would then be given the opportunity to form a government. When King went to request dissolution to avoid censure over the customs office scandal in Montreal, Byng pointed out to him that he was going back on his undertaking. King's behaviour was dishonourable, and dishonest.

Byng was absolutely right to have denied him dissolution.

Here, all the Governor General had to do was tell Mr. Harper either to demonstrate that he had the confidence of the House, or give way for someone else, i.e., entirely his choice, but either way he would had to have to behaved in an honourable manner.

There is nothing in Constitutional precedent of which I am aware that says requiring the first minister to behave in an honourable manner is contrary to the duties of the Goivernor General. On the contrary, some people might say that is the essence of the Governor General's job description.

A couple of points of clarification. Although Harper won a majority he only received the support of 24% of eligible voters. Upon taking office, Harper was given a surplus budget. It quickly turned to a deficit which has grown every year of his reign. Not only was he given a surplus but also an almost bullet proof banking system (at least by global standards). The previous Liberal government had set the table for Canada's current fiscal success.

Global energy superpower HARPERLAND has replaced the country that the world used to know as CANADA.

Our nation is now envisioned to be the world's one-stop shopping centre for oil (scraped from tar-sands bitumen), uranium and asbestos, et al. It's all very "ethical" - HARPERLAND's apologists would have us believe - according to the government propaganda couching the lie.

Corporate CEO Stephen Harper is still masquerading as Prime Minister, but his agenda benefits the international petroleum industry far more than the quality of life for a vast majority of the citizens who actually live and work here.

On the bright side, Harper and his doughy troupe of puppets are publicly accused of any number of ethical and procedural violations stretching back three elections. Hopefully, they have already made enough mistakes to flush them from power before their current mandate expires.

While we Canadians wait for the results of related "Elections Canada" investigations, HARPERLAND's Parliamentary majority is already dwindling as two elected members of his party have resigned since last year's race, and another is appealing a ruling from a lower court that voided the results in his riding.

Many duped Canadians are hoping that once the full scope of their arguably treasonous agenda is revealed, HARPERLAND's executive could be banished from the political landscape for a generation or more.

T'would only be fitting though, as it may take CANADA that long to restore our good name, eh?

The Canadian Government is not involved in Trans-Pacific Partnership talks. The United States Trade Representative will not allow Canada or Mexico at the table. All Harper managed to do was include Canada in the TPP. We don't get to negotiate a single thing.

Mr. Harper played no looser or faster with the prorugue rules than did other parties, in fact, Bobby Rae was the King of Prorogues.
Rae's NDP won power Sept. 6, 1990. On Dec. 19, 1991, Rae prorogued the House. They didn't come back until April 6, 1992. He then prorogued again, Dec. 10, 1992 - and didn't come back until April 13, 1993.

Canada is doing better than most countries thanks to Mr. Harper, people only believe him to be a bully because the media keeps telling them so. They believe everything they read without fact checking.

Some questions about this: (a) did Bob Rae prorogue the House while the Ontario NDP had formed only a minority government in Ontario; and (b) what reasons lead to these actions, and are they akin to the circumstances surrounding Harper's decisions? I'm not passing judgment, I'm just asking.

It seems fair to point out that the House you speak of was in a provincial government, as opposed to Harper's federal government, and also that Rae is not seeking leadership of the already-dismal Liberal party. Just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples.

What a load of crap. The left wing doesn't like the Harper government because the government's intent is to get things done. They are not going to allow an opposition who does not support their agenda to talk the clock out and prevent anything from getting done. We put up with 13 years and more of do nothing Liberal governments who were quite happy to simply manage and not address the issues facing the country. So now we have an activist government who is getting things done. Canadians will decide in 4 years whether they agree with the government or not. Writing slanted, biased columns like this is typical of a desparate opposition in Parliament and in the media.

Pardon me, but the only reason why the Canadian economy is in half-decent shape is that the PREVIOUS LIBERAL GOVERNMENT maintained tight regulation on the banking sector (much to the Conservatives' chagrin), and they handed the Cons a surplus. The Cons didn't build our safety net, but they sure are good at destroying it. And I really detest the nasty and bulying tone of the Tea-Party-North types. Please. Not in Canada.

This is Canada and it is too bad you can't think of a better insult than calling Conservatives tea partiers.

Yes and the Liberals had 13 years of economic growth and spent money wildly but I don't know on what but I wasn't certainly getting any richer as a taxpayer. Harper has endured well a significant world economic collapse and we are still doing ok.
That doesn't happen by chance.

Yet none of the issues that plague this country were addressed. Are aboriginals better off after 13 years of the most recent Liberal government? Why is our immigration system the laughing stock of the world? Why was our military decimated over the Liberal time in office?

So you can get off your high horse. Is the only claim to fame for the Liberals the banking sector? As for the surplus. Did the Conservatives put the money in their pockets? No they gave tax breaks to ordinary citizens who are still too highly taxed. Where has the safety net been broken? The latest budget has a contingency built into it.Seniors are enjoying income splitting. Lower income people face less costs by way of the GST cut. Healthcare is still being funded at a 6% escalator. So no there is no destruction taking place. It is only in the minds of the weak kneed opposition parties and their supporters.

If the Liberals "spent money wildly" how did they eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt?

You do realize that the last party to reduce income tax was the Liberal Party? Yes, the Conservatives introduced all sorts of boutique tax credits (which only increased the amount of paperwork one had to do and keep for verification purposes), but they didn't lower the income tax rate. In fact they cancelled the last part of the Liberal income tax rate reduction, which resulted in an increase in the income tax rate half-way through the year.

Doing OK as in the single biggest budget deficit ever? The GST cut had minimal impact on lower income households since they were already eligible for a GST/HST rebate.

It's interesting how you ignore the whole accountability and transparency thing that Harper originally campaigned. I guess once your the government, you can point to the previous government and throw your principles out the window.

Allow me to add to it.
That tighter banking laws and balanced budgets were Reform Party (now the Conservatives) platforms along with voter recall of MPs, free votes in parliament, more referendums on important matters (only Western nation that are know of that in modern times did not get to vote on its constitution. Thank you very much Mr. Trudeau).
At least Mulrooney who I detested let us vote on the Charlottetown Accord.

The Liberals had the good luck to govern during one of the greatest and most prolonged economic expansions in history. A five-year-old could have balanced the books and had a surplus.
During this time, The Liberals downloaded their debts to the provinces and also raided the employee funded Employment Insurance coffers. Their finance minister put his money into offshore accounts to save taxes.
They signed on to Kyoto without any results. In fact, the environment was worse off than before they signed on. Etc. etc.
Why do you think they were defeated?

Great article.
As much as Harper has done some good things, I sincerely detest the fact he is trying to make Canada like the US, and won a majority in the last election partially by dragging the election process down to US attack ad levels.
A bible problem like George W. - a sulphuric whiff of Dick Cheney and a Ronald Reagan approach to economics.
He is a Canadian Neo-con.
Canadians used to be known for beling civilised, but the Bloor Street mentality is being promoted by Harper.

"…They are not going to allow an opposition who does not support their agenda to talk the clock out and prevent anything from getting done…" No, what they will not allow is Parliament doing what it is supposed to do: scrutinizing the Government's plans. We did not elect a 4-year dictatorship; we elected a putatively-democratic Government, and a strong Loyal Opposition to hold the Government to account. The Americans talk about "checks & balances"; their system uses the "separation of powers" to provide those. In our system, the checks & balances are provided by Parliamentary oversight, and this is what is being threatened by the Harper Government's actions.

Hello...do you understand our system of government? In a majority government, the government usually get its way despite what the opposition says and wants. Yes the opposition can hold the government accountable by talking about issues but there is nothing they can really do. However, it sure is easy sitting on the sidlines harping about this, that and the other. When was the last time you saw an opposition party put forward an alternative policy to the goverments. Not very often. Even Mulcair cannot let carbon tax pass his lips even though that is what he means when he is talking about environmental sustainability. I know we have had minority governments for quite awhile but surely you do understand how a majority government works. In the end it is the Canadian people who will hold the government to account, not the opposition nor the media.